Too Old?

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .

ALERT THE PRESS! THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR! BERTIE HAS WRITTEN IN
SUPPORT OF A STATEMENT MADE BY MXSMANIC!!!!!

Ahhhh! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!! :-)


My guess would be a little to much ant poison in the chardonnay.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even
heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the
effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

No ****, when was the last time you flew a cabin load of heavy smokers to
altitude?

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
from smoking.

A heart attack is immediately incapacitating, and smoking dramatically
increases the likelihood of a heart attack (something that the FAA
ignores).

2) If smoking were "immediately incapacitating" from an altitude change,
every ski resort would be littered with bodies.

High-altitude ski resorts have their share of problems with people who
develop
altitude sickness, and many people without frank symptoms of illness still
are
far from being in top form at altitude.

3) Everyone becomes oxygen starved as altitude increases. For the average
heavy smoker that will happen at a lower altitude than for the average
non-smoker.

Yes. And so will the consequences.

4) Oxygen starvation doesn't result in medical problems, it causes
phyisological problems that are eliminated by increased oxygen.

Same thing. Not all of the problems can be fixed by increased oxygen, but
usually that helps.

Nonsense, you're just a dumb ass, headed of on one of your usual trolls.
Nothing here relates to the original intent of your statement.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
would be incapacitated.

Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
incapacitated.

That's where you have the advantage, you're incapacitated at any altitude.

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
BobR writes:

Your knowledge of this subject is so seriously limited that you really
need to drop out of the discussion before you make yourself look
really stupid. The people of Peru who live at high altitudes have
become acclimated to the altitude and are not as subject to altitude
sickness as those who live at lower altitudes.

Beyond a certain altitude, human beings can never adapt fully to the thinner
air.

And Mr. State the Bleeding Obvious chimes in with an irrelevancy.

And what would that altitude be?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.owning Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

More ignorant nonsense; if it were true about half the population of Peru
would be incapacitated.

Above a certain altitude, the population _is_ at least partially
incapacitated.

And that statement is totally irrelevant to what was being discussed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate even heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but not
conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of altitude. Heavy
smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

Funny, I'm a heavy smoker by anyone's definition, live at 1300 feet, and
at 8500 feet there is no effect on my vision.

Once at 7500 feet at night things got a little blurry and I became
concerned it might be oxygen effects, so I dropped down lower and
nothing changed even after I landed, so I chalked it up to being
tired that late at night.

Maybe your black and white, one size fits all, blanket statements just
aren't true for everyone.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

1) No one becomes "immediately incapacitated", whatever that means,
from smoking.

A heart attack is immediately incapacitating, and smoking dramatically
increases the likelihood of a heart attack (something that the FAA ignores).

Smoking increase the likelihood of a heart attack after decades of smoking,
by which time such effects will show up on the medical.

Decades is hardly "immediately".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net wrote in :


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
"Lonnie" @_#~#@.^net writes:

5) FAA minimums on Ox usage are conservative enough to acomodate
even heavy
smokers.

Perhaps they are conservative enough to keep smokers from dying, but
not conservative enough to shield smokers from the effects of
altitude. Heavy smokers can hardly increase in altitude at all
without suffering the effects
of altitude, beginning with vision impairment, usually.

No ****, when was the last time you flew a cabin load of heavy smokers
to altitude?

When's the last time you flew, Maxwell?


Bertie